Opening the Peer Reviews Black Box – Emerging Review Practices

Rajbir Singh (31 July 2025)

The peer review process remains the backbone of academic publishing — but like many old structures, it’s creaking. Especially in India, where the research ecosystem is evolving rapidly, the system needs reform: more reviewers, better incentives, faster timelines, and more transparent practices. Not everyone is content with the status quo. Around the world, new models are being tested.

 Open Peer Review (OPR): This approach removes the curtain. Identities of reviewers are disclosed, and sometimes, the entire review correspondence is published alongside the paper. Journals like eLife, BMJ Open, and F1000Research have adopted variants of this model. The idea is to increase transparency, reduce bias, and encourage constructive critique.

 Post-publication peer review: Platforms like PubPeer allow researchers to comment on papers after they’re published, turning the entire community into reviewers. This decentralises quality control and keeps the conversation going.

 Collaborative peer review: Some publishers (like Frontiers) allow reviewers and authors to interact directly — more like a workshop, less like a courtroom. This creates a more constructive and less adversarial process.

 Preprints with public feedback: In STEM fields, especially physics and biology, researchers are posting their work on preprint servers like arXiv and bioRxiv before peer review. Some then receive informal feedback from peers online, allowing them to strengthen the paper before formal submission.

Conclusion
Change may take time. But scholars can adapt, improvise, and push for accountability — one paper at a time. And if you’re still waiting for your review? Patience, persistence… and perhaps another cup of chai.